tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1039161489041752842.post6628004597557045508..comments2024-03-16T08:04:53.086-05:00Comments on Dredd Blog: The Ghost-Water Constant - 3Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1039161489041752842.post-13792367191263837392016-02-04T09:04:55.112-06:002016-02-04T09:04:55.112-06:00I changed it to 1% ....
The point is ... it won&...I changed it to 1% .... <br /><br />The point is ... it won't take much (0.98% ... 1.12% ... 1%)<br /><br />Let's just say 3 ft. of SLR is not far away in time.<br /><br />Thanks again.Dreddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629960642482064127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1039161489041752842.post-33457723167587503672016-02-04T07:20:00.227-06:002016-02-04T07:20:00.227-06:00"13.95% of 263.5 ft. is 3.675825 ft"
No,..."13.95% of 263.5 ft. is 3.675825 ft"<br />No, off by a decimal point. The result is 36.75825 ft if it is 13.95%. The new total would be 300.525 ft slr with all ice melt plus the ghost water increase. You get your new % of bad slr by just dividing the 3 ft into the total once. So the .98% or just over one hundredth of the total land ice melting is bad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1039161489041752842.post-44264875482748981172016-02-03T05:36:16.011-06:002016-02-03T05:36:16.011-06:00Mark,
Meanwhile: 'Climate Snow Job'? Scie...Mark,<br /><br />Meanwhile: <i>'Climate Snow Job'? Scientists Respond to Attack on Evidence (Op-Ed)</i> - <a href="http://www.livescience.com/53538-climate-change-evidence-is-real-despite-opinions-from-deniers.html" rel="nofollow">Live Science</a>Dreddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629960642482064127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1039161489041752842.post-48459454376217370112016-02-02T20:43:43.241-06:002016-02-02T20:43:43.241-06:00Many thanks Dredd!
I sent a thank you email to Chr...Many thanks Dredd!<br />I sent a thank you email to Chris at WaPo for his work and encouraged him to 'drop by' your lab to amplify his understanding and therefore, that of his large readership. mark hansonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10363775941512045745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1039161489041752842.post-3932455761469101502016-02-02T05:55:06.274-06:002016-02-02T05:55:06.274-06:00Tom,
Good to hear from you eagle eye!
This is mo...Tom,<br /><br />Good to hear from you eagle eye!<br /><br />This is more of the kind of criticism we all need.<br /><br />I appreciate it!<br /><br />Thank you!<br /><br />The 1.14% comes from "<i>The delicacy of the issue can be seen ... by realizing that only 1.14% of the global ice volume needs to melt to get us there (3 ft ÷ 263.5 ft. = 0.011385 = 1.14%)</i>" quoting the post: <a href="http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2015/07/a-paper-from-hansen-et-al-is-now-open.html" rel="nofollow">A Paper From Hansen et al. Is Now Open For Discussion</a>.<br /><br />The ghost-water constant is now calculated as 13.95%.<br /><br />13.95% of 263.5 ft. is 3.675825 ft, which sums to 267.18 ft. <br /><br />3 ft ÷ 267.18 ft. = 0.011228561 = 1.12% (not 0.98%)<br /><br />I changed the post to reflect that.<br /><br />I should not have changed the technique as I did.Dreddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629960642482064127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1039161489041752842.post-6395026600122994212016-02-02T05:19:26.075-06:002016-02-02T05:19:26.075-06:00Mark,
Any progress is appreciated.
But less so i...Mark,<br /><br />Any progress is appreciated.<br /><br />But less so <i>in extremis</i>, compared to timely progress.<br /><br />Like finding one lifeboat as the Titanic submerges.<br /><br />Mooney mentions more reality than the bulk of the scientific commentariat does these daze.<br /><br />Still, he links to a questionable scientific paper steeped in the "thermal expansion is a major factor" trance (<a href="http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2641.html#ref1" rel="nofollow">Nature</a>).<br /><br />The researchers who did that paper quote, then parrot, the IPCC error (ibid @ fn. 1).<br /><br />Nevertheless, I can say that the WaPo information is at least clearly going in the proper direction.<br /><br />To my way of thinking, the Hanson et. al. (2015) paper is more professionally aware (<a href="http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2015/07/a-paper-from-hansen-et-al-is-now-open.html" rel="nofollow">A Paper From Hansen et al. Is Now Open For Discussion</a>, <a href="http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2015/10/a-paper-from-hansen-et-al-is-now-open.html" rel="nofollow">2</a>, <a href="http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-paper-from-hansen-et-al-is-now-open.html" rel="nofollow">3</a>).<br /><br />To be clear, I am going to do a post about this WaPo event, because it may be something that is going to begin to show up in other main stream media outlets.<br /><br />Which is a good thing.<br /><br />You of course will get an honorable mention sir.Dreddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629960642482064127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1039161489041752842.post-68186816321262202822016-02-02T05:15:51.627-06:002016-02-02T05:15:51.627-06:00You converted the 13.95% figure to a decimal but d...You converted the 13.95% figure to a decimal but didn't convert the 1.14%. Why? You're taking a percent of a percent, which is confusing enough, but wouldn't it be .0114 x .1395 =.0015903 and 1.14 - .0015903 = 1.1384, so that the change is only slightly below what it was?<br /><br />TomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1039161489041752842.post-19796381815767906332016-02-01T16:55:50.219-06:002016-02-01T16:55:50.219-06:00Link to Wa Po articles that mentions(finally) '...Link to Wa Po articles that mentions(finally) 'gravity', thermal expansion (again),the AMOC (ventilation) and proximity to C emission as being a real factor as to why the Atlantic, and in particular, the US east coast is in a whole lotta trouble.<br /><br />Emerging truth. Makes me think of how a chick prepares to leave the egg. Once begun, there's no way to stop the process.<br />'They' are reading, learning and sharing Dredd! Great work!<br />Acceleration of anything is impressive!<br /><br /><br />https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/01/why-the-u-s-east-coast-could-be-a-major-hotspot-for-sea-level-rise/?postshare=2701454353259045&tid=ss_twmark hansonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10363775941512045745noreply@blogger.com